Dems, Terrorists and Jihadi masterminds all with similar aims and timeframes!

It's not your Grandfather's Democrat Party, that's for sure!

Kill - the - U-S-A
Vote for dems, ev'ry day,

HEY HEY, D - N - C,
How many fingers do you see?
That - we - flip at you,
As liberty, you screw and screw

HEY HEY - Wed the "gay",
Just don't defend - the U S A,
Alien, killers too,
Need the rights - they get from you

Hey - A - CLU,
Child preds are safe with you,
And - the - leftists say,
"It's 'for the kids', we act this way"

And the liberal congregation said, "If Christians weren't such a bunch of dangerous fanatics we would say, 'Aaaa-mennn!'."

They missed the deadline?

Damn- now they're going to have to hire some management consultants or something.

Wow, hey look at that - they caught terrorists using proven police methods.

Stupid Germans. What are they thinking? Don't they know they should just invade a country that isn't involved instead?

And, just so we're totally clear: there's NOTHING in the Reuters article that says anything about the surveillance that caught these creeps, being in ANY WAY based on warrantless wiretapping, or torture, or anything beyond good, solid police work.

So this line in the article:

Naturally, the sort of surveillance which led to these arrests is precisely that many Democrats want ended.

- is completely and totally baseless.

Just so you know.

jim, reports of emails given to the Germans, probably caught through NSA type surveillance. Note the timing to support the Lose the Warriors?
====================================

jim, the methods used by OUR government to alert the Germans to the threat in THEIR country are exactly the methods the Far Left wants stopped. And since the Far Left is calling the shots in the Democrat Party these days your comment is completely baseless.

What you call 'good old fashioned police work' covered a multitude of sins in the old days. The task had fallen to bureaucrats and your ken of it to novelists by the time your constabulary sensibilities were formed, but what you consider effective doesn't begin to cut it, anymore, foge.

Can you explain all those sites going off the air virtually simultaneously? Huh?
========================

jim, from his high falutin place of ignorant honor, is happy to declaim about 'completely and totally baseless'. What he don't know about baseless.
========================

OK, now I've read this article. The suspect were either tremendously stupid or tremendously desperate if they persisted with planning despite knowledge of police surveillance.

The big boys would like to know why they slash tire with impunity and still talk to the other 79 suspects. bin Laden is shaking his long black beard, 'With help like this, how can you get anything done, anymore? And they blame me.'
====================================

"Naturally, the sort of surveillance which led to these arrests is precisely that many Democrats want ended"

What is your evidence 1) 'sort of surveillance'
2) Dems 'want ended' (sic)?.

Law enforcement is the method preferred by upholders of Habeus Corpus. Whose ox is being gored by this post?

It's not law enforcement against criminals. It's defense against a wartime enemy.

Kim and Justrand - please list exactly what methods these are, that you guys are saying Democrats are against and want forbidden.

Because I read the Reuters article that was linked to, and saw nothing about any methods that fit this description.

Which makes it a baseless accusation, by definition.

Jim, I have a silly little question....

You guys on the left keep saying that we should not treat terrorism as a military battle but a law enforcement battle....

But in the next breath you guys blame Bush for not killing bin Laden.

Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?

"Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?"

For a mind-numbingly stupid parrot, you ask questions I would expect from someone recently gut-shot. Are you in pain?

And Jim, silly question number two...

The liberals always bash Bush for his "cowboy go it alone military first" ways... Yet when Bush worked with the Northern Alliance and the locals in Afghanistan rather than invading or bombing Tora Bora ourselves, Liberals whine that we "outsourced" the killing of bin Laden.

Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?

And Jim... I also have silly question number 3...

For days now, the liberals have been wailing that Bush hasn't killed bin Laden... YET none of them blame Clinton for not taking bin Laden when he was offered to the U.S. not 1 not 2 but 3 times.

Can you tell me how this are both genuinely held beliefs and not partisan dumbshit talking points?

ok... we know Semanticleo can't answer the question... anyone else?

For a mind-numbingly stupid parrot, you ask questions I would expect from someone recently gut-shot.

Cleo....you drag your past in here every time and attempt to dispense snark all the while assuming no one remembers your mind-numbingly stupid appearances elsewhere.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/07/12/on-getting-screwed/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/tony-blair-mentions-god.html

http://patterico.com/2007/08/01/ive-wanted-to-post-this-syllogism-since-clyburns-statement/

Go away, you fool.

".you drag your past in here every time and attempt to dispense snark all the while assuming no one remembers your mind-numbingly stupid appearances elsewhere."

Speaking of parrots. Wanna cracker?

Jim:

And, just so we're totally clear: there's NOTHING in the Reuters article that says anything about the surveillance that caught these creeps, being in ANY WAY based on warrantless wiretapping, or torture, or anything beyond good, solid police work.

Guess you missed this part

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.

Your assertion the U.S. intel services didn't hav a hand in uncovering this plot is "completely and totally baseless."

"Just so you know."

Speaking of parrots. Wanna cracker?...no thanks, althouse and patterico said not to accept food from fools.

Jim:

Because I read the Reuters article that was linked to, and saw nothing about any methods that fit this description.

Let's assume for the sake of argument your correct, no NSA program or other programs used by intel services were used.

Then how DID U.S. sources intercept these emails from Pakistan and alert German authorities?

semanticleo:

Are you in pain?

YES! Every time you show up in a thread and contribute nothing.

"Every time you show up in a thread and contribute nothing."

They say being gut-shot is the most painful of all wounds. Sorry for your pain.

semanticleo - so contribute something.

Maybe you can answer the question posed to Jim.

Just how did U.S. authorities intercept emails from Pakistan without the use of the Terrorist Surveillance program or other intel sources?

Can I continue my normal respiration rate while I wait? (as opposed to holding my breath)

"Just how did U.S. authorities intercept emails from Pakistan without the use of the Terrorist Surveillance program or other intel sources?"

Neither I, or you or the talking parrots have any idea, because that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, and must remain on secret-double probation. But it really doesn't matter, to you folks, how they got the information, does it?

Never argue with anyone that enters the battle of wits, unarmed. Semanticleo and Jim didn't realize they needed to know what they were talking about. They deal with democrats on a daily basis and all are on the same level of stupid. Just repeat after me 'I never had sex with that woman'. S Starts at the top and flows downhill, one of the major things a plumber needs to know. I had already read on several sources that the U.S. provided the Germans with the EMails that got them on track. Hard day to day police work did the rest. Semanticleo and Jim evidently only read the propaganda at KOS/DU and make fools of themselves daily by parroting the left wing Democrat/Communist garbage. Do the DNC talking heads use Osama's talking points of is it the other way around?

secret-double probation.

That's double secret probation, Wermer wannabe.

Scrapiron

Do the DNC talking heads use Osama's talking points of is it the other way around?

I think they go both ways...

"That's double secret probation, Wermer wannabe."

I hope you're not trying to build the courage to ask me for a date. Just a stalker? OK.

senmanticleo:

Neither I, or you or the talking parrots have any idea, because that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, and must remain on secret-double probation. But it really doesn't matter, to you folks, how they got the information, does it?

Oh... look he's hiding behind the veil of secrecy! You're an absolute genus! (not)

Sorry guy, you making a (educated?) guess as to how they were intercepted wouldn't harm "NATIONAL SECURITY" one wit. (unless you care to admit your a member of the outfit that did the intercept)

What it does do is give you a handy excuse to NOT offer an answer.

ASSHAT

"guess as to how they were intercepted wouldn't harm "NATIONAL SECURITY""

Just the fact that the terrorists KNOW we're listening places the program in jeopardy. Who leaked that to Reuters? Hang him from the yardarm

Semanticleo

When a troll has a history of being tossed from several blogs they usually:
1) go back home
2) sharpen their polemic
3) become better informed
4) try to become the next Deb Frisch.

You've failed 1-3, and with every appearance look more like #4.

Jim.... oh jim, you still out there? Or are you still looking for that answer that tops semanticleo's in lunacy?

Anyway, since you brought out the "fight terror with good police work" canard, here is the end game in your idea.

a $2 billion dollar judgement against Iran for its part in the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Of course the fly in the ointment is the surviving victims and the relatives will never see a penny.

semanticleo:

Just the fact that the terrorists KNOW we're listening places the program in jeopardy. Who leaked that to Reuters? Hang him from the yardarm

So, then you agree the NYT leaking the NSA terror surveillance program and leaking the financial monitoring program harmed their use?

And your still avoiding the question.

NOTE this second Reuters report of the German bust. This version claims the intercepts were of a phone call from Pakistan not emails.

According to surveillance details published in Der Spiegel magazine, the men had been given a two-week deadline for their planned strikes in a late August call from northern Pakistan that was monitored by German police

QUICK, semanticleo...call in the feds! I've compromised national security!

Who leaked that to Reuters? Hang him from the yardarm....hmmm

I think you just stepped in it Cleo. Marc gave you an out...but this appears to actually be news to you.

HughS:

Marc gave you an out...but this appears to actually be news to you.

semanticleo already had an out.... out of his mind.

"So, then you agree the NYT leaking the NSA terror surveillance program..."

So you guys answer rhetorical questions, and can't recognize sarcasm. Holy Moly.

Cleo: "But it really doesn't matter, to you folks, how they got the information, does it?"

Nope.

Hundreds of lives were saved. OUR surveillance was necessary to alert the Germans, because the rules THEIR Leftists shoved down THEIR throats forbid it. Those are the same rules OUR Leftists would lvoe to shove down OUR throats.

So these Jihadis thought they were safe sending emails and making phone calls because they knew the German's hands were tied.

Turns out we used OUR techniques to catch these morons. Good for us!

So you guys answer rhetorical questions, and can't recognize sarcasm.

We answer all questions...sarcasm? Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase Rick Moran, you're dumber than a college kid.

Huge-nitwit;

"We answer all questions."

"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than to receive an answer."

In other words, a rhetorical question does not require an answer. Which was my point. Want to try sarcasm?

You must be a college student.

Nice try cleo...study your footprints on the path to your way here. I've provided links every time.

My formal education (BA, Finance, MA Humanities) is nothing compared to the 30 years of real life experiences that inform my opinion.

In other words, a rhetorical question does not require an answer. Which was my point. Want to try sarcasm?

A point poorly made...BTW, thanks for the lecture on rhetoric.

"that inform my opinion."

Jeebus, where did you study?

Jeebus, where did you study?...at two institutions of learning that would fail you for writing a sentence like the one above.

Move on Cleo...you are avoiding marc's question, the topic and you have shown an inexcusable indifference and ignorance to the exposure of the NSA surveillance program.; frankly, I think marc caught you by surprise on which news organization exposed the very valuable program.

because that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY, and must remain on secret-double probation.

A matter of national security until some pencil necked geek at the NY Slimes gets hold of it and figures it's the next big story and he'll win a Putzer Prize.

Jim...... oh where are you jim????????????

Doing Osama DEM Laden's begging somewhere?

It's a great day when scrapiron completely trashes jim and cleo with one small pile of prose.
==========================================

"pile of prose."

You are actually developing a sense of humor, Kim.

Cleo
On your best day here it's still a collision between your opinion and that good judgment that so eludes you.

Sematicleo, as opposed to you and jim developing any sense what so ever. Please post somewhere else. You are so full of shit, you are starting to draw flies on my computer screen.

Hey, Marc at # 20.

The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.

Don't look now Marc - but I believe that's YOUR ass.

There is no part of ANY Democratic initiative that I'm aware of, to stop the US from intercepting foreign emails.

Are you aware of any? Got any links or citations?

Put 'em here, by all means, and I'll stand corrected.

Otherwise, you're wrong. Just so you know, indeed.

Hey Marc, as re: #22 - it could have been the NSA, or any other US intelligence organization.

There is no Constitutional or FISA prohibition against foreign surveillance - and there is no Democratic initiative to stop this surveillance.

Maybe what you're thinking is the Bush admin warrantless-wiretapping program, that attempts to circumvent FISA by spying on US citizens who might be talking with foreign nationals - an entirely separate situation.

Oh, and Marc ,as re: # 36 - there's no FISA or other prohibition against intercepting foreign phone calls, either.

So you're wrong that way, too.

So Marc, I shall now wait for you to actually cite any surveillance that happened here, that the Democrats were ever against.

Oh, and Zelsdorf - computer screens don't draw flies. It must be someone else in that room you're in that's drawing them.

Jim, you can be an idiot in just one post. You don't need five. Your desperation to be taken as anything other than a hack is hilarious.

You got your ass handed to you. Give up while you have some pride.

Jo - what?

Are we even reading the same article here?

The claim made in the article is that the Democrats are against this kind of surveillance.

I've shown this is not the case. I've demanded evidence to prove me wrong, and no one's provided any.

Therefore I had my ass handed to me?

Let me understand this: first, you demanded that we "prove to you" that the linked article said what it said. Now we must "prove to you" that Democrats oppose the NSA surveillance programs?

Sorry, but our mission statement nowhere includes the education of morons.

Gee, I don't see anywhere in the articles about this that suggests that U.S. surveillance was made without obtaining warrants. As this is the objection made by people who value the Constitution, and not some ridiculous "don't perform surveillance" strawman, it seems rather presumptuous to assume that anyone other than terrorists would object "want this surveillance ended."

Anyone care to point out where they found information indicating that any U.S. involvement in these arrests couldn't had been performed under FISA guidelines or other applicable laws?

Yes, absolutely, all classified details will be immediately provided to satisfy your curiosity.

Not.

Idiot.

Since you claim to know that the surveillance performed here was done in such a way that Democrats (or others) would object to it, and since the objection to recent NSA activities has been the unconstitutional assertion that warrants are unnecessary, it is not unreasonable to ask how you know the details of said surveillance.

Or were you just talking out of your ass?

Idiot.

Well, mantis, it's called "logic," a concept apparently foreign to you.

If the US provided the Germans with the tip on the emails, my assumption is it came through the NSA surveillance of foreign-to-foreign internet communications which are switched through the US - the same which a 9th Circuit Clinton-appointed judge declared "unconstitutional" a week or so ago.

Now, it is certainly POSSIBLE we intercepted those communications through some other means. Maybe we established a secret listening post on a planet of Alpha Centauri. Maybe Miss Cleo told us.

If either of those, or some other fanciful circumstance, proves to be the case, I will happily issue a correction.

Failing that, I operate under the assumption the information came from a KNOWN method of collection. I haven't heard any Democrats protesting the decision of the 9th, or the similar decision from a DC Circuit Judge the other day invalidating the provisions of the Patriot Act authorizing like intercepts.

I may simply have missed those protests, of course, in which case I apologize in advance of your supplying examples.

mantis, it's a thankless job trying to straighten out Cleo's rhetoric. If it weren't for his BDS, he'd be glad these terrorists were stopped.

Did you like the bin Laden tape? It's corporations, son. And global warming.

Allah knew it all along.
=====================================

Semanticleo's 6:12 post yesterday marvelously illustrates the poverty of the ethic and his rhetoric.

How do you like being a tool for the simpleton Adam Gadahn? You poor fools.

It's the Joos, and their dam global warming.
======================================

Thank goodness for the German police cracking down on these criminal terrorists. This foiled plot no doubt saved many innocent civilian lives.

What you mean, Paul, is thank god for the NSA and their 'domestic' surveillance, the domicile in this case being Our Ms Gaia.
=============================

This case is yet another example of the fact that all of the other nations engaged in fighting terrorism, supposedly more "enlightened" than the US, are doing a lot of electronic surveillance - warrantless or otherwise.

If the US provided the Germans with the tip on the emails, my assumption is it came through the NSA surveillance of foreign-to-foreign internet communications which are switched through the US - the same which a 9th Circuit Clinton-appointed judge declared "unconstitutional" a week or so ago.

Hmm, well let's look at the 9th Circuit first. I can only assume that you are talking about the EFF/Al-Haramain hearing in the 9th in mid-August. Since this was merely a hearing to see if the cases would go forward, and no ruling has yet been issued by the three-judge panel (yes, two were appointed to the 9th by Clinton, one by Carter; so you sort of got one thing half right), one wonders what the hell you're talking about when you write "which a 9th Circuit Clinton-appointed judge declared "unconstitutional" a week or so ago." But hey, details....

With that out of the way, we can look at your assumption that the e-mails in the news reports were a) foreign-to-foreign communications which are switched through the US, b) picked up by the NSA without warrants, and c) that they couldn't possibly have been picked up with a warrant. Such are the assumptions necessary to come to the conclusion that those who oppose warrantless eavesdropping would have a problem with the intelligence gathering in this case (not to mention the fact that it's a different story if this case involves no surveillance of US persons).

Now, it is certainly POSSIBLE we intercepted those communications through some other means. Maybe we established a secret listening post on a planet of Alpha Centauri. Maybe Miss Cleo told us.

Well, it's possible that we got warrants from the FISA court, since that's what it's designed for. I know your not dense enough not to see that, so I must assume that you are full of shit; a partisan twerp who would support dissolving the constitution if doing so could harm his political enemies.

Your logic falls apart when it's revealed that its based upon many false or unknown premises.

I haven't heard any Democrats protesting the decision of the 9th, or the similar decision from a DC Circuit Judge the other day invalidating the provisions of the Patriot Act authorizing like intercepts.

Well, the provisions, once again, left no legal recourse for people surveilled nor those served with NSLs, and left the entire program wide open for criminal abuse. But that would never happen, right? Oh wait, the FBI is investigating the the use of fraudulent letters sent to telecoms demanding records. Those damn activist judges, how dare they use the constitution to protect Americans from criminal abuse by law enforcement!

The fact that idiots like you defend the efforts to eliminate the separation of powers in our government would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

Also, Jim Addison, you should know that the US has many listening posts in foreign countries, that intercept both phone and email communcations, which don't touch US communications at all.

And intercepting these is not in violation of the Constitution or the FISA; and stopping this kind of surveillance has *never* been proposed by any Democrat that I'm aware of.

So, your factless "assumption" is just that.

Or mantis, let's look at the way all those weaselly Dems caved on the FISA thing when the consequences of their actions were made plain to them. They were a bunch of lying hypocrites, and so are you to buy all that garbage. Datamining and electronic surveillance are not copper wires and operators, anymore. The laws were out of date, still are, and are tough to modernize with the sort of demagoguery from the likes of your sort.

Other than that, carry on. You're as fair as any of the confused left.
=======================